EXPERIENCES ON COLLABORATIVE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT USING CROSS-SPARRING BETWEEN TWO UNIVERSITIES Robin Clark, Gareth Thomson Aston University, Birmingham, UK Elina Kontio, Janne Roslöf, Paula Steinby Faculty of Business, ICT and Chemical Engineering, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland ABSTRACT Aston University and Turku University of Applied Sciences (TUAS), together with six other partners, participated in an Erasmus+ funded project aimed at developing a collaborative, comprehensive and accessible evaluation process model for HEIs to use in their Quality Assurance and Enhancement. As a part of the project, the developed model has been piloted by the participating universities. The starting point for these pilots was a self-evaluation exercise inspired by the CDIO self-evaluation model. Whilst completing the self-evaluation, the participants also defined a set of criteria particularly relevant and of interest for the further development of their activities. After the self-evaluation phase, each institution was paired with another institution that provided a best fit concerning the strengths and development areas of the other based on the respective self-evaluation results,. Thereafter, the so called cross-sparring visits took place. In this paper, the experiences of the self-evaluation process as well as of the cross-sparring visits between Aston University and Turku University of Applied Sciences are reported. The process and practical arrangements of the visits are described, and the key findings based on the cross-sparring results are discussed. KEYWORDS Quality Assurance, International Collaboration, Faculty Development, Standards: 1, 10, 12 INTRODUCTION Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) need to continuously improve the quality and efficiency of their operations. This is important not only in order to ensure the best possible education to future generations of professionals but also to be able to use the scarce resources in an optimal way. Topics connected to quality assurance have been widely discussed in the literature (see, eg., Van Der Wende and Westerheijden (2001) and Amaral & Rosa (2010)), while the CDIO initiative also underlines the importance of continuous development. Under CDIO, each HEI should have proper processes for evaluating its programs to determine their effectiveness and efficiency in reaching the intended goals and, thus, serve as the basis of continuous program improvement (CDIO, 2015). Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016. Aston University and Turku University of Applied Sciences, together with six other partners (all CDIO member institutions), have participated in an Erasmus+ funded project called QAEMarketPlace4HEI (http://projects.au.dk/cross-sparring/) aimed at developing a collaborative, comprehensive and accessible evaluation process model for HEIs to use in their Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement work. The project has promoted cooperation in quality assurance through the design and piloting of a new kind of continuous, accessible, cooperation based model supporting so called cross-sparring between the institutions. The project and its goals have been previously reported by Bennedsen, Clark, Rouvrais & Schrey-Niemenmaa (2015) and Clark et al. (2015). As a part of the project, the developed model has been piloted by the participating partner universities. The starting point for these pilots was a self-evaluation exercise inspired by the CDIO model with participants ranking their current level of maturity over a range of 28 criteria covering a range of learning and teaching themes such as the use of technology in programmes, links to employability and the development of faculty competence. Whilst completing the self-evaluation, the participants also identified which criteria were particularly relevant and of interest for the further development of their activities. After the self-evaluation phase, each institution was paired with another based on the self-evaluation results, to provide a best fit concerning the strengths and development areas of the other. Thereafter, the so called cross-sparring visits took place. Cross-sparring is a process that makes feedback collaborative, concrete and objective. The sparring partners focus on the objectives, learn from the experiences of others and engage in reflection. The aim of the approach is to benefit both the institution evaluated, which will get a more objective view on its strengths and potential improvement areas, and for the sparring partner which may identify best practices that can be useful for their own institution. This paper will explore the experiences of the self-evaluation process as well as of the cross- sparring visits between Aston University and Turku University of Applied Sciences. The process and practical arrangements of the visits are described, and the key findings based on the cross-sparring results are discussed. The structure of the paper is as follows: After this section the developed self-evaluation and cross-sparring methods are described in more detail. The next two sections include descriptions of the cross-sparring visits, experiences on the pilot, and the main findings by TUAS and Aston University participants respectively. Finally, the joint conclusions are reported and results discussed. ON THE SELF-EVALUATION AND CROSS-SPARRING PROCESSES In Higher Education today, institutions are constantly trying to balance the time spent and resource allocated to the areas of Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Enhancement (QE). Often the quality assurance element dominates as this is what is most closely linked to the measures identified by institutions to ensure a high level and consistency in tertiary learning provision. Quality enhancement is often identified in bespoke projects or left to the enthusiasm and energy of programme teams and individual teachers. The QAEMarketPlace4HEI project has been designed to bring the QA and QE elements of Higher Education activity together into one process. The objective behind the project is to develop an approach that when applied ensures the satisfaction of the QA requirements but at the same time actively promotes a culture that identifies enhancement opportunities for modules and programmes. The specific focus has been on programmes that use or aspire to Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016. use active learning as a key pedagogical element of their Higher Education provision (Kontio et al, 2015). The starting point for the process, as already identified, is the Self-Evaluation exercise. Across the globe, Higher Education quality assurance systems invariably start with some form of reflective exercise where programme teams are invited to consider the features of programmes and to record this reflective thinking in some form. In some systems this is in the form of a narrative often referred to as a Self-Assessment Document. This can be an onerous exercise as the open ended nature of the document guidelines can lead to lengthy documents in which teams try to include as much about the programme as possible. This potential lack of focus was acknowledged by the CDIO community at its inception and addressed through the development of a self-evaluation tool that is based on identifying the most appropriate statement relating to the evaluation of a particular criterion. This approach is based on levels of maturity, higher numbers indicating more mature thinking and action in addressing the criterion. The CDIO approach to self-evaluation was taken as the basis for the process. The criteria list had to be expanded in order to consider the wider considerations of a full QA exercise, hence the 12 CDIO criteria was expanded to 28 criteria following an iterative exercise that took into account several different QA systems from across the globe. The detail of this process has been reported by Bennedsen, Clark, Rouvrais & Schrey-Niemenmaa (2015) and Clark et al. (2015). Despite the iterative nature of the exercise adopted at the self-evaluation generation stage of the project, the project team always anticipated that the criteria and the wording used to describe the different levels of maturity would need to be revisited at the conclusion of the cross-sparring process. The self-evaluation process also requires participants to identify examples of activity that can be used to justify the maturity level value attributed to a programme. This was a conscious decision to request this, even though it added a little to the requirements of the self-evaluation process, as then the MarketPlace, into which the self-evaluation data is fed, could then become a repository of ideas and examples to both ensure consistency in the level identification, but to also stimulate ideas. Once a self-evaluation has been conducted it can be entered into the MarketPlace software platform and used as the basis for a pairing with a partner institution. Each institution is able to identify the criteria it wants to be paired against. For the pilot phase of the project it was decided to pair institutions based on 4 selected criteria. Generally the pairing related to criteria where institutions wanted to develop ideas for improvement. This meant that the criteria would pair institutions where there was some form of gap between their performance as identified by the self-evaluation scores. The output of this phase of the project